TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai ( ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 28.02.2018 and pertains to the assessment year (A.Y.) 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. In the facts circumstances of the case in law, the learned C.I.T.[A], erred in ignoring the pending petition filed for condonation of delay with CBDT for not filing the return of income within the time prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T.[A] has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect of deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 80-IC of the I.T. Act 1961. The said disallowance being patently illegal, bad in law and devoid of merits the same may please be deleted and the claim made by the appellant may please be accepted. 3. It may please be held that since the appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from filing the return of income for the A.Y.2012-13 within the statutory time limit prescribed u/s.139[l] of the I.T. Act 1961, the claim of deduction u/s.80IC as made by the appellant deserves to be accepte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with The Member of Income Tax Central Board of Direct Tax, New Delhi vide letter dated 17.03.2015 for condonation of the delay. The assesse has failed to explain any factual causes that prevented the assessee to file return within the due date as per Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The provisions of Section 80AC of the Act are reproduced below: 80AC Where in computing the total income of an assessee of the previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2006 or any relevant subsequent assessment year, any deduction is admissible under Section 80-IA or Section 80-IAB or Section 80- IB or Section 80-IC [or Section 80-ID or Section 80- IE], no such 'deduction shall be allowed to him unless he furnishes a return of his income for such assessment year on or before the due date specified under sub-section (1) of Section 139.] The explanatory notes to the Circular No. 14/2006 dated 28-12-2006 expresses the intention of the Section 80AC- Circular No. 14/2006, Dated 28-12-2006. Benefits of certain deductions not to be allowed in cases where return is not filed within the specified time limit. Section 139(1) casts an obl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equested the CBDT to favorably consider the case of the assessee. The A.O. has not taken cognizance of the said petition. 8. Thereafter, considering in detail the provision of law and relying upon catena of case laws, he confirmed the A.O. s action. He concluded as under: 5.17 In the light of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the appellant is not entitled for benefit of Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it has not filed the return of income on or before the due date prescribed u/s. 139(1). 5.18 Without prejudice to the above, I have examined whether there is reasonale and sufficient cause for filing the return of income late. The reasons advanced for filing the return of income belatedly are that the assessee company has changed its softare from Datavision to Infor and though data was fed reports were not getting generated; that Directors could not concentrate due to severe illness of the Director who happens to be mother of all other three Directors. 5.19 From the details furnished by the appellant it is seen that 'Infor' software was purchased on 24/2/2011. As per law, books of account are to be maintained on a day to day basis. If the Bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equent to the decision of ITAT in the case of Sapphire Garments (supra), the Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs S. Venkataiah (in ITA No. 114 of 2013 vide order dated 26/6/13) has upheld the order of the tribunal that when assessee was held to be legally entitled to deduction u/s.80IC and his claim could not be disallowed merely because return was filed belatedly. Learned counsel of the assessee further submitted that following the above decision of Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court and other several benches of the ITAT have decided this issue in favour of the assessee. Learned counsel of the assessee admitted that the decision of Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs Shelcon Properties 370 ITR 305 and Hon ble High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Umesh Chandra Dalkoti vs ACIT (in ITA No. 07/2012) has denied the benefit of deduction where the return of income was filed belatedly. However, he referred to the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Vegetable Products 88 ITR 1924, the proposition that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the assessee should be adopted. He submitted that several benches of ITAT have fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court was much prior to the decision of constitutional bench of the honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Dilip Kumar and Company Ors. (in Civil Appeal No. 3327 OF 2007 vide order dated 30.07.2018). 15. In the said decision, the Hon ble Supreme Court has expounded that in case of exemption provisions, the same should be construed in favour of revenue in case there is any ambiguity. 16. Now in the present case, though the provisions of the act are clear, the iota of ambiguity resulting from the decision of honourable Andhra Pradesh High Court no more survives in view of the clear exposition from the honourable constitutional bench decision of the honourable Supreme Court. Similar view was expressed by the ITAT in the case of Uma Developers vs. ITO (in ITA No. 2164/Mum/2016 vide order dated 11.10.2019). The ITAT has duly taken note of this decision and following the same has distinguished the various decision which claimed to be in favour of the assessee. We may refer to the decision of ITAT as under: 8. We have considered rival submissions and perused material on record. We have also examined in detail the relevant case laws cited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he aforesaid provision has to be interpreted in the touchstone of the ratio laid down in the Constitution Bench decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dilip Kumar Co. Ors. (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking judicial note of a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as different High Courts on the issue of interpretation of taxing statute, and more particularly, interpretation of charging and exemption provisions, have held that when the words in Uma Developers a statute are clear, plain and unambiguous and only one meaning can be inferred, the Courts are bound to give effect to the said meaning irrespective of consequences. If the words in the statute are plain and unambiguous, it becomes necessary to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words used declare the intention of the legislature. However, if the plain language results in absurdity, the Court is entitled to determine the meaning of the word in the context in which it is used keeping in view the legislative purpose. Further, if the plain construction leads to anomaly and absurdity, the Court having regard to hardship and consequence that flow f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Court to the facts of the present case, it is quite clear that as per the provision of section 80AC of the Act, which is very much clear and unambiguous in its expression, for claiming deduction under section 80IB(10) of the Act, it is a mandatory requirement that the assessee must file its return of income within the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, notwithstanding the fact whether or not the assessee has actually claimed deduction in the said return of income. Once the return of income is filed within the due date prescribed under section 139(1), even without claiming deduction under the specified provisions, the assessee can claim it subsequently either in a revised return filed under section 139(5) of the Act or by filing a revised computation during the assessment proceeding. In that situation, the condition of section 80AC would stand complied. The words used in section 80AC of the Act being plain and simple, leave no room for a different interpretation. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, the provision contained under section 80AC of the Act has to be construed strictly as per the language ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has materially changed and the provisions providing for exemption / deduction have to be construed strictly in terms with the language used therein and if there is any doubt, the benefit should go in favour of the Revenue. Certainly, the Tribunal, Pune Bench, did not have the benefit of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court while rendering its decision. 14. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the decisions referred to above and more particularly applying the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilip Kumar Co. Ors. (supra), we hold that the condition imposed under section 80AC of the Act has to be fulfilled for claiming deduction under Uma Developers section 80IB(10) of the Act. Since, the assessee has not fulfilled the aforesaid condition, deduction claimed under section 80IB(10) of the Act has been rightly denied by the Departmental Authorities. Accordingly, the order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld. Grounds raised are dismissed. 17. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid precedents including that from the Hon'ble Supreme Court Constitutional bench, in our c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
